Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khuila

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Khuila]]=

:{{la|Khuila}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Khuila}})

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC), especially not a Russian one - and I can find no reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete possibly inaccurate foreign dicdef. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • save it's a loanword and one of the newest one. That's why it's absent in many dictionaries. And Russian word like matryoshka is the same (but the old one) - you can find it in Oxford Dictionaries. (Юджин Первый (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC))
  • :Maybe, but Wikipedia still isn't a dictionary - see WP:NOTDIC. If you look at Matryoshka, you'll see that article isn't a dictionary definition. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete per WP:DICTIONARY. Classic case, even if it is in Russian. Nolelover It's football season! 18:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:DICTIONARY.--Guerillero | My Talk 19:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • save I DIDN'T SAY that wikipedia is a dictionary. English has got a great number of loanwords.....For English-speakers it's a neology - and it's a well-known fact that the English language borrows about 5 thousand words every year.(Юджин Первый (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC))
  • :Here I quote from Wipedia's policy concerning Neologisms: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." Just because it's out there doesn't mean we need an article on it. Nolelover It's football season! 20:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • :(You can't !vote twice). No, we know you didn't say that Wikipedia is a dictionary, and yes, we know all about loanwords and neologisms. The point is that *because* Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, it shouldn't have articles that are only dictionary definitions - that's what the WP:NOTDIC guideline is trying to explain. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this word must be in wikipedia At the moment I live in the town of Sitka and this word is widespread there - Y'all are tring to get rid of that Russian guy and i wanna support him. God damn he's right!

Besides I wanna add that this word has not only a definition, but an etymology as well.

In my personal opinion this is very important(94.24.208.20 (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

:And a publication that explains etymology is a dictionary - see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dictionary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if it were a loanword (which it isn't; it's just a transliteration of a Russian word), it still wouldn't belong per WP:NOTDIC.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 13, 2011; 12:55 (UTC)
  • I've heard this word a couple of times and due to this dude i know the true meaning of the word. Take it easy. If ya know nada 'bout the word that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Loanword for sure........(109.191.23.39 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC))
  • "Having heard" a word "a couple of times" does not make it a loanword. For a word to be considered a loanword, it needs to be included into at least one major English dictionary, and even if someone can produce this evidence (which I very much doubt will happen), there is still a matter of the article being a dictionary definition and nothing more.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 13, 2011; 17:17 (UTC)

I consider the article should be here - though it needs the completion.

I will do my best to protect it.

The author must find more info about the word to complete the article.

I'll try to help him. Maybe i'll find something...(94.24.208.20 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC))

:Removed the bold on the "should be there" bit, as you can only !vote once -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Even if we did want articles on every borrowed or coined word, this one has not reached notability. —Tamfang (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, at best this is an article about a neologism with zero WP:RS to warrant inclusion. --Kinu t/c 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC. --DonaldDuck (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.